2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of
Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain (14-JUN-07,
GAO-07-736).
The Department of Commerce's (Commerce) U.S. Census Bureau
(Bureau) seeks updated information on the addresses and maps of
housing units and group quarters from state, local, and tribal
governments through the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA)
Program. Prepared under the Comptroller General's authority, this
report assesses (1) the status of the LUCA Program, (2) the
Bureau's response to prior recommendations by GAO and others and
new challenges related to the program, and (3) the Bureau's plans
for conducting the program in areas affected by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. GAO reviewed LUCA program documents, met with
and surveyed participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and
interviewed Bureau officials and local officials in the Gulf
Coast region.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-736
ACCNO: A70871
TITLE: 2010 Census: Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update
of Census Addresses Program, but Challenges Remain
DATE: 06/14/2007
SUBJECT: Census
Data collection
Housing
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Rita
Local governments
Mailing lists
Program evaluation
Research programs
Software
Surveys
Training utilization
Program implementation
2010 Decennial Census
Census Bureau Local Update of Census
Addresses Program
Gulf Coast
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-736
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for t
* [4]Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the
* [5]Bureau Addressed Issues about Workload and Burden, but Chall
* [6]Bureau Plans Improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program Training
* [7]Bureau Has Not Collected Information Needed to Fully Assess
* [8]Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issue
* [9]Conclusions
* [10]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [11]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [12]GAO Contact
* [13]Acknowledgments
* [14]GAO's Mission
* [15]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [16]Order by Mail or Phone
* [17]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [18]Congressional Relations
* [19]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Addressees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
June 2007
2010 CENSUS
Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses Program,
but Challenges Remain
GAO-07-736
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 6
The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program 11
Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the 2000
Experience but Faces New Challenges 13
Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issues in
Hurricane-Affected Areas 24
Conclusions 29
Recommendations for Executive Action 31
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 33
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 36
Appendix III Web-Based Survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants 41
Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53
Related GAO Products 54
Figures
Figure 1: Map of the Bureau's California Dress Rehearsal Site 9
Figure 2: Map of the Bureau's North Carolina Dress Rehearsal Site 10
Figure 3: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status 12
Figure 4: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline 13
Figure 5: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of Time
Allowed to Complete the Review 15
Figure 6: Available Options for Participation in 2010 LUCA Program 16
Figure 7: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Satisfaction with
Participation Options 17
Figure 8: Extent of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Problems with File
Conversion 20
Figure 9: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Reports of the Usefulness of
the Training Session 21
Figure 10: City Hall in Pass Christian, Mississippi, Destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina (Below Left), and City Officials in Slidell, Louisiana,
Forced to Operate Out of Trailers since the Hurricane (Below Right) 26
Figure 11: Trailers in Front of Damaged Housing Units in New Orleans,
Louisiana 27
Abbreviations
BAS Boundary and Annexation Survey
CBT computer-based training
GPS global positioning system
LUCA Local Update of Census Addresses
MAF Master Address File
MTPS MAF/TIGER Partnership Software
NRC National Research Council
TIGER Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
June 14, 2007
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
Chairman
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Davis
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Wm. Lacy Clay
Chairman
The Honorable Michael Turner
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney
House of Representatives
The decennial census is a constitutionally mandated activity undertaken by
the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau). The data that the census collects are
used to reapportion the seats of the U.S. House of Representatives; redraw
congressional districts; allocate billions of dollars each year in federal
financial assistance; and provide a social, demographic, and economic
profile of the nation's people to guide policy decisions at each level of
government. Further, businesses use census data to market new services and
products and to tailor existing ones to demographic changes.
To ensure it delivers quality data, the Bureau employs a number of quality
assurance programs throughout the course of the census. One such program
is the Bureau's Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, which
provides a mechanism for state, local, and tribal governments to
contribute to complete enumeration of their jurisdictions by reviewing,
commenting on, and providing updated information on the addresses and maps
that the Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires within those
communities.
The Bureau is testing the LUCA Program as part of the 2008 Census Dress
Rehearsal in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the area
surrounding Fayetteville, North Carolina. Bureau officials state that they
selected these sites to provide a comprehensive environment for
demonstrating and refining planned 2010 Census operations, such as the
LUCA Program and address canvassing.1
Because of the role LUCA plays in building complete and accurate address
lists and maps, under the Comptroller General's statutory authority to
initiate engagements, we reviewed the Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal and
2010 LUCA Program. As agreed with your offices, we are providing this
report to you, which contains information that will be useful for your
oversight responsibilities of the decennial census. Our specific
objectives were to (1) document the current status of the LUCA effort, (2)
determine how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges
associated with implementing the LUCA Program, and (3) examine how the
Bureau is addressing the challenges in the areas affected by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita that may affect the Bureau's successful implementation of
the 2010 LUCA Program and related decennial census operations.
To address the first objective, we collected source documents from Bureau
headquarters, the Charlotte Regional Office, and the Seattle Regional
Office detailing the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal timelines.
We also interviewed Bureau officials to determine the status of current
operations for the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Finally, we
visited and collected documents from 12 localities in California and North
Carolina (the two LUCA Dress Rehearsal sites) to verify Bureau officials'
testimonial evidence.
For the second objective, we reviewed recommendations for improving the
LUCA Program that were found in reports by GAO, the National Research
Council (NRC),2 the Department of Commerce's (Commerce) Office of the
Inspector General, and a contractor hired by the Bureau.3 We reviewed
source documents and interviewed Bureau officials to determine how the
Bureau addressed the recommendations and new challenges associated with
the LUCA Program. We also conducted a Web-based survey of 42 LUCA Dress
Rehearsal participants in California and North Carolina4 to gauge their
satisfaction with how the Bureau addressed these recommendations and
challenges, and performed structured telephone interviews with LUCA Dress
Rehearsal nonparticipants to determine why they did not participate in
LUCA.
1 The address canvassing operation is a field check of all addresses done
to verify housing unit addresses. The address canvassers add to the 2010
Census address list any additional addresses they find and make other
needed corrections to the 2010 Census address list and maps using
global-positioning-equipped handheld computers.
2 NRC is part of the National Academy of Sciences.
In order to address the third objective, we undertook fieldwork in areas
of the Gulf Coast region affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita
(Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) by interviewing local officials and
collecting photographic and documentary evidence to determine the
challenges that implementing the LUCA Program in these areas presents.
Additionally, we collected documents and interviewed officials from the
Bureau's headquarters and Dallas Regional Office to determine Bureau plans
for addressing these challenges and prior GAO recommendations addressing
contingency planning for the affected areas. Appendix I provides
additional details on our scope and methodology. We conducted our work
from July 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
The Bureau conducted nearly all of its planned LUCA Dress Rehearsal
operations in accordance with its published timeline. The Bureau has begun
address canvassing, in which it will verify information that localities
provided to the Bureau for the LUCA Program. The Bureau will also enable
Dress Rehearsal participants to review feedback materials regarding their
submissions from December 2007 through January 2008. The Bureau met the
time frames listed in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, but as
we describe below, this timeline did not include testing of software to be
used in the 2010 LUCA Program. Additionally, the Bureau completed the
first step of the 2010 LUCA Program, sending local jurisdictions advance
letters to notify them about the LUCA Program in January and February
2007.
3 See GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to
Resolve Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges,
[20]GAO-06-272 (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006); 2010 Census: Planning
and Testing Activities Are Making Progress, [21]GAO-06-465T (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006); and 2010 Census: Costs and Risks Must be Closely
Monitored and Evaluated with Mitigation Plans in Place, [22]GAO-06-822T
(Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006). See also National Research Council,
Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program (Washington, D.C.: December
2002), and Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General,
Additional Steps Needed to Improve Local Update of Census Addresses for
the 2000 Decennial Census (Washington, D.C.: September 1998).
4 See app. III for a full list of survey responses.
The Bureau has taken steps to reduce participants' workloads and burdens
and improve training--all areas NRC, GAO, and others had identified as
needing improvement. Building on the progress it has made, the Bureau
could take additional steps to address new challenges in these areas, as
well as challenges related to measuring overall program effectiveness. For
instance, to reduce participant workload and burden, the Bureau provided a
longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options
for how participants may submit updated information to the Bureau;
combined the collection of addresses from two separate operations into one
integrated and sequential operation; and created the MAF/TIGER5
Partnership Software (MTPS), which is designed to assist LUCA participants
in reviewing and updating address and map data. However, the Bureau did
not test MTPS as part of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and tested MTPS with
only one locality in preparation for the 2010 LUCA Program. Additionally,
many participants experienced problems with converting Bureau-provided
address files to their own software formats. Also, the Bureau has planned
improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program training (i.e., specialized
workshops for informational and then technical training), and plans to
supplement the workshops with computer-based training (CBT). However, the
Bureau did not test these improvements in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
Finally, although the Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans
regarding the 2010 LUCA Program, Bureau officials have stated that the
Bureau intends to assess the LUCA Program's contribution to address counts
and will consider a plan to assess the program's contribution to the
census population count. Such analysis would provide a measure of the
ultimate impact of the LUCA Program on achieving a complete count of the
population. Further, the Bureau does not currently collect information
needed to measure the percentage of eligible local governments that had
assessed the accuracy of Bureau-provided addresses and maps but had no
changes to the addresses and maps. Without these data, the Bureau may not
be able to fully estimate the impact of the LUCA Program on the MAF
database and the census population count.
5 The Bureau's address list is known as the Master Address File (MAF); its
associated geographic information system is called the Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database. TIGER is
a registered trademark of the U.S. Census Bureau.
In response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Bureau has proposed steps
to address LUCA-related issues in hurricane-affected areas. During the
course of commenting on a draft of this report, the Bureau finalized plans
for implementing these steps. Hurricane Katrina alone destroyed or made
uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes; in New Orleans, the hurricanes
damaged an estimated 123,000 housing units. The 2010 LUCA Program still
faces challenges caused by the continuous changes in the housing stock in
areas affected by storm damage or population influxes, which may hinder
local governments' ability to accurately update their address lists and
maps. Further, the condition of the housing stock is likely to present
additional challenges to address canvassing and other decennial census
operations in the form of decreased productivity for Bureau staff, issues
associated with identifying vacant and uninhabitable structures, and
workforce shortages. Officials in Bureau headquarters and the Dallas
Regional Office have proposed and implemented several changes to the 2010
LUCA Program in the Gulf Coast region, such as conducting conference calls
with the states of Louisiana and Mississippi and providing additional
promotional workshops in areas hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Additionally, the Bureau is considering changes to its 2010 Census address
canvassing operation in the Gulf Coast region (an operation that begins in
April 2009).
We are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to
(1) assess potential usability issues with the LUCA Program's CBT and MTPS
by selecting localities to test the software packages or by providing
alternative means to assess such issues before participants begin
reviewing and updating materials for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007,
and provide information on how localities can mitigate issues identified
in such assessments via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help
desk; (2) provide localities not using MTPS, via its public Web site, its
LUCA technical help desk, and other appropriate means, instructions on
converting files from the Bureau's format to the appropriate format for
software most commonly used by participating localities to update address
information; (3) assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final
census population counts, as recommended by NRC (to permit an evaluation
of the 2010 LUCA Program in preparation for 2020); (4) establish a process
for localities that agreed to participate in the LUCA Program, but found
no changes in their reviews to explicitly communicate to the Bureau that
they have no changes; and (5) develop strategy, plans, and milestones for
operations in areas in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges field
staff are likely to encounter in conducting address canvassing and
subsequent decennial operations in communities affected by the hurricanes.
The Secretary of Commerce provided written comments on a draft of this
report (see app. II). Commerce generally agreed with our recommendations
for the Bureau to (1) assess usability issues with MTPS and CBT; (2)
provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file conversion;
(3) assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final census
population counts; (4) establish a process for localities to indicate that
they participated in the LUCA Program but found no changes; and (5)
develop strategy, plans, and milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast
that address the challenges that field staff are likely to face. The
Bureau also agreed with the draft report's recommendation that the Bureau
finalize its plans for conducting the LUCA Program in the areas affected
by Katrina and Rita, noting that its plans were now final. We therefore
deleted this recommendation. Commerce also provided some technical
comments and suggestions where additional context might be needed, and we
revised the report to reflect these comments where appropriate.
Background
A complete and accurate address list is the cornerstone of a successful
census, because it identifies all living quarters that are to receive a
census questionnaire and serves as the control mechanism for following up
with living quarters that do not respond. If the address list is
inaccurate, people can be missed, counted more than once, or included in
the wrong locations. MAF is intended to be a complete and current list of
all addresses and locations where people live or potentially live. The
Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER)
database is a mapping system that identifies all visible geographic
features, such as type and location of streets, housing units, rivers, and
railroads.6 The Bureau's approach to building complete and accurate
address lists and maps consists of a series of operations that sometimes
overlap and are conducted over several years. These operations include
partnerships with the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies;
state, local, and tribal governments; local planning organizations; the
private sector; and nongovernmental entities. One such operation is the
Bureau's LUCA Program.
6 The MAF and TIGER databases are also linked into what is called the
MAF/TIGER database, through a process where the Bureau assigns every
housing unit in MAF to a specific location in TIGER.
The LUCA Program is mandated by the Census Address List Improvement Act of
19947 that expanded the methods the Bureau uses to exchange information
with tribal, state, and local governments in order to support its overall
residential address list development and improvement process. The LUCA
Program is a decennial census geographic partnership program that allows
participants to contribute to complete enumeration of their jurisdictions
by reviewing, commenting on, and providing updated information on the list
of addresses and maps that the Bureau will use to deliver questionnaires
within those communities. The LUCA Program was first implemented for the
2000 Census;8 under the program, the Bureau is authorized (prior to the
decennial census) to share individual residential addresses with officials
of tribal, state, and local governments who agreed to protect the
confidentiality of the information.9
According to Bureau officials, one reason that participation in the LUCA
Program is important is that local government officials may be better
positioned to identify some housing units that are hard to find or are
hidden because of their knowledge of or access to data in their
jurisdictions. For example, local governments may have alternate sources
of address information (such as utility bills, tax records, information
from housing or zoning officials, or 911 emergency systems), which can
help the Bureau build a complete and accurate address list. In addition,
according to Bureau officials, providing local governments with
opportunities to actively participate in the development of the MAF/TIGER
database can have the added benefit for the Bureau of building local
governments' understanding of and support for the census. Local
governments have key roles in ensuring a successful census--not just in
developing the address list, but during subsequent operations as well,
especially those designed to boost public participation in the census.
The LUCA Program was first implemented for the 2000 Census, and of the
39,051 eligible entities--such as cities and counties--for the 2000 LUCA
Program, 18,33310 (47 percent) agreed to participate.11 Subsequently, for
2010, the Bureau has sent LUCA advance notification letters to
approximately 40,000 entities and has set a participation goal of 60
percent. After localities that opted to participate in the LUCA Program
have submitted their updated maps and address lists, the Bureau conducts a
field check called address canvassing. At that time, the address
canvassers--using handheld computers equipped with a global positioning
system (GPS)--will go door to door updating the Census 2010 address list,
verifing the information localities provided the Bureau during the LUCA
Program, adding any additional addresses they find, and making other
needed corrections to the address list and maps. The address canvassing
operation will ensure that all addresses submitted during the LUCA Program
actually exist and that they are assigned to the correct census block.
7 Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-430,
October 31, 1994.
8 The 2000 LUCA Program had two separate components: the 1998 city-style
address operation and the 1999 non-city-style address operation.
9 Under 13 U.S.C. S 9(a), local governments that obtain access to Title 13
data are required to ensure the confidentiality of such data.
In preparation for the 2010 Census, both the LUCA Program and the
subsequent address canvassing operation will be tested as part of the
Bureau's Dress Rehearsal. The 2008 Census Dress Rehearsal is taking place
in San Joaquin County, California, and nine counties in the Fayetteville,
North Carolina area (see figs. 1 and 2). The Bureau states that the Dress
Rehearsal will help ensure a more accurate and cost-effective 2010 Census
by demonstrating the methods to be used in the nation's decennial
headcount, and that the main goal of the Dress Rehearsal is to fine-tune
the various operations planned for the decennial census in 2010 under as
close to census-like conditions as possible. According to the Bureau, the
Dress Rehearsal sites provide a comprehensive environment for
demonstrating and refining planned 2010 Census operations and activities,
such as the use of GPS-equipped handheld computers.
This report is the latest of several studies we have issued on the 2010
Census. See Related GAO Products at the end of this report for a list of
selected products we have issued to date.
10 Of the 39,051 eligible entities, 20,718 chose not to participate, 5,525
entities signed participation agreements, 2,877 entities returned
materials but recorded no updates or action, and 9,931 entities submitted
at least one address action or challenged at least one block.
11 National Research Council, Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program.
Figure 1: Map of the Bureau's California Dress Rehearsal Site
Figure 2: Map of the Bureau's North Carolina Dress Rehearsal Site
The Bureau Has Completed Nearly All Planned Activities for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal and the First Step of the 2010 LUCA Program
The Bureau has completed nearly all planned operations for the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal in accordance with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline (see fig.
3).12 The only components that are not yet completed are address
canvassing (which is scheduled to take place from April through June 2007)
and the Dress Rehearsal participants' review of feedback materials
regarding their submissions (which is scheduled to take place from
December 2007 through January 2008). The Bureau met the first date on its
timeline when it sent out the LUCA advance notification letters and
informational materials to the highest elected officials in February 2006.
The Bureau sent out the official invitation to localities, provided
participant training, and shipped LUCA materials on schedule.
Additionally, localities reviewed and updated LUCA materials within the
June to October 2006 period specified on the timeline. Most recently, the
Bureau finished its review of participants' LUCA submissions and updated
the MAF/TIGER geographic database in December 2006. Bureau officials state
that they expect to meet the dates on the timeline for the remaining
component--address canvassing.
12 Bureau headquarters and the Charlotte Regional Office provided us with
internal timelines for the 2010 LUCA Program and the LUCA dress rehearsal
operations held in parts of California and North Carolina from June
through October 2006. Additionally, we obtained a public version of the
Bureau's timelines for both the LUCA dress rehearsal and the 2010 LUCA
Program from its Web site (see figs. 3 and 4).
Figure 3: Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal Timeline and Status
It is important to note that while the Bureau met the time frames listed
in its published LUCA Dress Rehearsal timeline, some activities were not
included in that timeline. For example, plans to test the newly developed
MTPS (which is intended to assist participating localities in their 2010
LUCA reviews) and test the new computer-based LUCA training were not
included in the Bureau's LUCA Dress Rehearsal schedule--precluding the
opportunity to test these software products under census-like conditions.
The 2010 LUCA Program is now under way. In January and February 2007, the
Bureau sent advance notification letters for the 2010 LUCA Program to the
highest elected officials in each of the eligible localities. Bureau
officials expect to meet the remaining dates listed on the published
timeline (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Bureau's 2010 LUCA Timeline
Note: See the Bureaui's Web site,
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/luca2010/luca.html .
Bureau Modified the LUCA Program to Address Issues from the 2000 Experience but
Faces New Challenges
The Bureau has modified the 2010 LUCA Program to address issues stemming
from the 2000 experience but faces new challenges with the program. To
reduce the workload and burden on LUCA participants, the Bureau provided a
longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials; provided options
to submit materials for the LUCA Program; combined the collection of
addresses from two separate operations into one integrated and sequential
operation; and created MTPS, which is designed to assist LUCA participants
in reviewing and updating address and map data. However, the Bureau tested
MTPS with only one potential user for the 2010 LUCA Program, and did not
test MTPS with any localities during the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In
addition, many participants experienced problems with converting
Bureau-provided address files. Further, the Bureau has planned modified
training for the 2010 LUCA Program, but the Bureau did not test each of
these modifications in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Finally, although the
Bureau will likely plan to assess the contribution that the LUCA Program
makes to address counts, the Bureau does not have a plan to assess the
contribution that the program makes to population counts. Such analysis
would provide a measure of the ultimate impact of the LUCA Program on
achieving a complete count of the population. Also, the Bureau has not
collected the information needed to fully measure LUCA participation rates
and is therefore limited in its ability to assess the cost and benefits of
the LUCA Program to the Bureau. Without this information, the Bureau may
not be able to fully measure the extent to which local review contributed
to the MAF database and the census population count. Moreover, an
additional improvement to the LUCA Program that the Bureau cited was the
agency's expansion of direct LUCA participation to state governments. The
Bureau noted that allowing states to participate directly can fill the gap
when local governments do not participate because of a lack of resources
or technical challenges.
Bureau Addressed Issues about Workload and Burden, but Challenges with Software
and File Conversion Remain
Studies by us, NRC, and others highlighted concerns with the burden and
workload placed on participants in the 2000 LUCA Program. In testimony
given before the Subcommittee on the Census, House Committee on Government
Reform in September 1999, we noted that LUCA may have stretched the
resources of local governments and that the workload was greater than most
local governments had expected.13 According to a report contracted by the
Bureau, two reasons cited by localities for not participating in the 2000
LUCA Program were the volume of work required and the lack of sufficient
personnel to conduct the LUCA review.14
Recognizing that not all localities have the resources to participate
effectively in the LUCA Program within imposed time constraints, the
Bureau made several changes to the program. First, the Bureau provided a
longer review period for LUCA participants. In 2004, NRC reported on the
2000 LUCA experience and concluded that the Bureau should clearly
articulate realistic schedules for the periods when localities can review
and update LUCA materials.15 Concurrently, the Bureau itself recommended
that it allow sufficient time for participants to complete LUCA updates
before the Bureau begins address canvassing activities. As a result, the
Bureau extended the review period for LUCA Program participants from 90 to
120 calendar days. The implementation of the review extension was well
received by LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants; the majority of respondents
to our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants indicated that 120 days
allowed adequate time to complete the LUCA review (see fig. 5).
13 GAO, 2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to
Date, [24]GAO/T-GGD-99-184 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 1999).
14 ITS Services, Inc., Results of the Survey of Selected Governments
Eligible for the Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program (Fairfax,
Va.: 2002), v.
Figure 5: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Views on the Adequacy of Time
Allowed to Complete the Review
Second, the Bureau provided localities with options for how they may
participate in the LUCA Program, as recommended in a 2002 contractor study
of the program.16 Specifically, the Bureau now provides three options for
how localities can submit address and map information to the Bureau: (1)
full address list review with count review, (2) Title 13 local address
list submission, and (3) non-Title 13 local address list submission (see
fig. 6). The three options differ in the level of review of Bureau
materials by participating localities and in requirements to adhere to
rules concerning confidentiality of information. For options one or two,
participants may use MTPS to assist in their reviews.
15 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
Challenges (Washington, D.C.: 2004), 96.
16 ITS Services, Inc., Recommended Communication Methods to Support
Participation in the Ongoing LUCA Program (Fairfax, Va.: 2002), 6.
Figure 6: Available Options for Participation in 2010 LUCA Program
Our survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants found that the majority of
localities were satisfied with the participation options provided by the
Bureau (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Satisfaction with
Participation Options
Third, the Bureau combined the collection of addresses from two separate
operations for city-style and non-city-style addresses17 into one
integrated and sequential operation. In a 2004 report, NRC suggested that
the Bureau coordinate efforts related to the decennial census so that the
LUCA Program and other Bureau programs would not be unduly redundant and
burdensome to localities.18 Based on complaints about the multiphased LUCA
Program from the 2000 experience (where some participants found the two
separate operations confusing), the Bureau designed the 2010 LUCA Program
to be a single review operation for all addresses. Bureau officials also
told us that the combined LUCA operation would be fully integrated with
the decennial census schedule with address canvassing. As a result of the
Bureau's efforts, localities could face a reduced burden, and
participation in the 2010 LUCA Program could be less confusing. Further,
the Bureau may be able to more effectively verify address information
collected from LUCA Program participants during address canvassing.
17 City-style addresses represent both the location of the housing unit on
the ground and the mailing address for the housing unit (i.e., 101 Main
St., Anytown, MD 12345). Non-city-style addresses, such as Post Office box
and rural route numbers, indicate where mail is delivered to an addressee
but do not necessarily designate the location of the addressee's housing
unit on the ground.
18 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
Challenges, 97.
Finally, the Bureau has created MTPS, which is a geographic information
system application that will allow LUCA Program participants to update the
Bureau's address list and maps electronically.19 The application will also
enable users to import address lists and maps for comparison to the
Bureau's data and participate in both the LUCA Program and the Boundary
and Annexation Survey (BAS)20 at the same time. The Bureau noted that
participants who sign up to participate in the LUCA Program by October 31,
2007, will be allowed to provide their boundary updates with their LUCA
updates and thereby avoid having to separately respond to the 2008 BAS. A
2004 study by NRC recommended that the Bureau coordinate efforts so that
the LUCA Program, BAS, and other programs are not unduly redundant and
burdensome for local and tribal entities.21 Consistent with that
recommendation, the Bureau created MTPS, which Bureau officials said
benefits participants by reducing their workloads and burdens in
participating in the 2010 LUCA Program by allowing them to review and
update address and map information together in one software package.
Building on the progress it has already made, the Bureau can take
additional steps to address new challenges in reducing workload and
burdens for LUCA participants. First, although the Bureau performed
internal tests of the software, the Bureau did not test MTPS as part of
the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and tested MTPS with only one locality in
preparation for the 2010 LUCA Program. Properly executed user-based
methods for software testing can give the truest estimate of the extent to
which real users can employ a software application effectively,
efficiently, and satisfactorily. In addition, multiple users are required
to tease out remaining problems in a product that is ready for
distribution.22 The Bureau's statement of work regarding MTPS specifically
required milestones for testing and review of the software by 10 local
sites during its development. However, the Bureau's contract did not
specify how many local sites would test the LUCA portion of MTPS. Further,
meeting minutes between the Bureau and the MTPS contractor revealed that
the contractor did not necessarily plan to test the LUCA portion of MTPS
with local users during its development. The Bureau ultimately identified
three local sites to test the LUCA portion of MTPS, but only performed the
test with one. Of the other two proposed sites, one explicitly canceled
testing, and the other did not respond to the Bureau's attempts at
communication. Additionally, Bureau officials told us that user testing
for the LUCA Program portions of MTPS was constrained by existing resource
limitations and timing issues associated with the schedule for development
of MTPS. Bureau officials also informed us that they will provide
frequently asked questions regarding MTPS for the LUCA technical help
desk.
19 MTPS also incorporates the functions of the Boundary and Annexation
Survey.
20 The Bureau conducts the BAS annually to collect information about
selected defined geographic areas. The BAS is used to update information
about the legal boundaries and names of all governmental units in the
United States.
21 National Research Council, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and
Challenges, 97.
Second, a majority of LUCA Dress Rehearsal participants experienced
problems with converting Bureau address files from the Bureau's format to
their own software formats. If participants in the 2010 LUCA Program
choose not to use MTPS to update address and map information, they can
review and update computer-readable files of census address lists in a
pipe-delimited text file format.23 While the Bureau included instruction
for converting files in its LUCA Dress Rehearsal participation guide, it
did not include information on specific commonly available types of
software that localities are likely to use.24 Participants in the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal experienced problems with converting the files from the
Bureau's format to their respective applications; our survey of LUCA Dress
Rehearsal participants revealed that the majority of respondents had, to
some extent, problems with file conversions to appropriate formats (see
fig. 8). Our fieldwork also revealed issues pertaining to file conversion;
for example, one local official noted that it took him 2 days to determine
how to convert the Bureau's pipe-delimited files. To mitigate the
potential burden on localities that choose not to use MTPS, the Bureau
will provide technical guidance on file conversion through its LUCA
technical help desk, but does not plan to provide instructions for
converting Bureau-provided address files through other means. At present,
the Bureau does not know how many localities will opt not to use MTPS for
the 2010 LUCA Program, but those localities may face the same challenges
faced by participants in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
22 See A. Dillon, "Usability Evaluation," Encyclopedia of Human Factors
and Ergonomics, ed. W. Karwowski, 1930-1933 (London: Taylor and Francis,
2001). Andrew Dillon, PhD, is the dean of the University of Texas School
of Information; he is also a professor of information, psychology,
information, and risk and operations management at the University of
Texas.
23 Tab-delimited text is one of the more common data formats, defined by
text separated by tabs. Pipe-delimited format is essentially the same kind
of format, but uses the pipe symbol ("|") as its delimiting property.
24 Such software may include Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Lotus
1-2-3, Quattro Pro, and Oracle.
Figure 8: Extent of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Problems with File
Conversion
Note: Seven of the 31 respondents either had no basis to judge or did not
respond to this question.
Bureau Plans Improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program Training but Did Not Fully
Test Improvements in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal
Leading up to the 2000 Census, we reported that LUCA training received
less favorable reviews than the other components of the LUCA Program.25
The 2000 LUCA Program had one training session that encompassed all
aspects of the LUCA Program. For the 2010 LUCA Program, the Bureau plans
to separate LUCA classroom training into informational and technical
training sessions and provide user guides tailored to the participation
option chosen by LUCA Program participants. The Bureau provided localities
with information on the participation options during the LUCA Dress
Rehearsal. However, during the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, the Bureau conducted
training sessions that combined promotional and technical components of
training because it did not have time to conduct the promotional workshop
prior to the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Consequently, the Bureau was not able
to obtain feedback from Dress Rehearsal participants about separating
classroom training before the 2010 LUCA Program. Nevertheless, overall
respondents to our survey found the LUCA Dress Rehearsal training session
useful (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants' Reports of the Usefulness of
the Training Session
25 [25]GAO/T-GGD-99-184 .
The Bureau plans to further improve the 2010 LUCA Program by offering CBT
modules to program participants. Though participants were not provided
with CBT in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, our work has found that this method
of training is viewed by participants as helpful. Specifically,
respondents to our survey ranked CBT higher than classroom training, in
terms of being "extremely" or "very" useful. Additionally, local officials
told us that CBT was more convenient for them because they need not leave
their offices or adjust their schedules to learn how the LUCA Program
works. However, the Bureau's plans for testing the LUCA CBT include only
one user. Properly executed user-based methods of software testing can
provide the truest estimate of the extent to which real users can employ
an application effectively.26 The contractor responsible for creating the
LUCA CBT was to have provided preliminary versions of the CBT to the
Bureau for testing beginning in May 2007--7 months after the end of the
LUCA Dress Rehearsal review and 3 months before participants begin
reviewing and updating address lists and maps for the 2010 LUCA Program.
This timing did not allow the Bureau to test the CBT under census-like
conditions, and will leave little time to make any changes before the CBT
is distributed to LUCA participants.
Bureau Has Not Collected Information Needed to Fully Assess LUCA Costs,
Benefits, and Contributions
A 2002 study by a Bureau contractor recommended that the Bureau evaluate
the cost and benefits of its LUCA-related activities. An NRC study of the
LUCA Program recommended that the Bureau quantify the value of the program
in both housing and population terms. The study indicated that quantifying
the value of the LUCA Program is useful to show that the cost for the
effort is worthwhile and persuade local officials that it is worth their
time and resources to become involved in the LUCA Program27 (for example,
by showing how LUCA contributes to a more accurate count of their
communities' populations).
The Bureau said that it would mark and evaluate contributions (such as
added, corrected, or deleted addresses) of the LUCA Program to the MAF
database. The Bureau has not finalized its evaluation plans regarding the
2010 LUCA Program; these plans would include decisions about whether to
conduct assessments of the program's contribution to the census population
count. The Bureau also stated that measuring whether the LUCA Program is
cost beneficial "has not been a priority" for the agency, given that the
program is legally mandated. In addition, Bureau officials stated that
they will not budget the LUCA Program separately until fiscal year 2008.
They noted that the LUCA Program budget is currently combined with those
of other geographic programs in the Decennial Management Division budget.
26 See Dillon.
27 National Research Council, Assessment of the 2000 Census LUCA Program,
134.
Our work in the area of managing for results has found that federal
agencies can use performance information, such as that described above, to
make various types of management decisions to improve programs and
results. For example, performance information can be used to identify
problems in existing programs, identify the causes of problems, develop
corrective actions, develop strategies, plan and budget, identify
priorities, and make resource allocation decisions to affect programs in
the future. Finally, managers can use performance information to identify
more effective approaches to program implementation and share those
approaches more widely across the agency.28
One aspect of assessing the LUCA Program is determining the extent to
which localities assess Bureau-provided counts, addresses, and maps.
However, LUCA Program participation rates are currently difficult to
measure because the Bureau does not have a method of tracking localities
that agreed to participate in the program but did not submit updates to
the Bureau because they found no needed changes to Bureau-provided
information. Officials from the Bureau measure LUCA Program participation
by whether localities agree to participate in the program, regardless of
whether they actually take the time to review the materials the Bureau
provides them. Inventory forms used by localities to inform the Bureau of
updated LUCA materials do not include an option for localities to indicate
whether they reviewed the materials and chose not to provide updates or
had not identified any needed changes. This information would allow the
Bureau to distinguish between localities that initially agreed to
participate but did not and localities that agreed to participate and
either did not review the materials or found no changes to submit. The
Bureau would then have a unique estimate of localities that found the
Bureau's data to be accurate. Without more precise information on
localities that do not provide information, the Bureau cannot fully track
localities that actually reviewed materials during participation in the
LUCA Program, and therefore cannot ascertain the actual participation
rates. More important, without this information, the Bureau cannot fully
measure the extent to which local reviews have contributed to accurate
address lists and population counts.
28 GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, [26]GAO-05-927 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
Bureau Has Proposed but Not Finalized Steps to Address Issues in
Hurricane-Affected Areas
Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Mississippi and Louisiana on August 29,
2005, and caused $96 billion in property damage--more than any other
single natural disaster in the history of the United States. On September
24, 2005, Hurricane Rita followed when it made landfall in Texas and
Louisiana and added to the devastation. Still today, the storms' impact is
visible throughout the Gulf Coast region. Hurricane Katrina alone
destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes. In New
Orleans, the hurricanes damaged an estimated 123,000 housing units. The
2010 LUCA Program faces challenges caused by the continuous changes in the
housing stock in areas affected by storm damage or population influxes,
which may hinder the ability of local governments to accurately update
their address lists and maps. Further, the condition of the housing stock
is likely to present additional challenges for address canvassing and
other decennial census operations in the form of decreased productivity
for Bureau staff, issues associated with identifying vacant and
uninhabitable structures, and workforce shortages. Early in 2006, based on
our prior recommendations, the Bureau chartered a team to assess the
impact of the storm damage on its address list and maps for the area. This
team (working with other officials from Bureau headquarters and the Dallas
Regional Office) proposed several changes to the 2010 LUCA Program and
address canvassing in the Gulf Coast region. Officials in the Bureau
headquarters and Dallas Regional Office have implemented several of these
changes.
Many officials of local governments we visited in hurricane-affected areas
said they have identified numerous housing units that have been or will be
demolished as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and subsequent
deterioration. Conversely, many local governments estimate that there is
new development of housing units in their respective jurisdictions. The
officials we interviewed from localities in the Gulf Coast region
indicated that such changes in the housing stock of their jurisdictions
are unlikely to subside before local governments begin updating and
reviewing materials for the Bureau's 2010 LUCA Program--in August 2007.29
Local government officials told us that changes in housing unit stock are
often caused by difficulties that families have in deciding whether to
return to hurricane-affected areas. Local officials informed us that a
family's decision to return is affected by various factors, such as the
availability of insurance; timing of funding from Louisiana's Road Home
Program;30 lack of availability of contractors; school systems that are
closed; and lack of amenities, such as grocery stores.31 As a result of
the still-changing housing unit stock, local governments in
hurricane-affected areas may be unable to fully capture reliable
information about their address lists before the beginning of the LUCA
Program this year or address canvassing in April 2009. Furthermore,
operation of local governments themselves has been affected by the
hurricanes (see fig. 10). These local governments are focused on
reconstruction, and officials we spoke with in two localities questioned
their ability to participate in the LUCA Program.
29 The period for local review and update of addresses and maps for the
2010 LUCA Program is August 2007 through March 2008.
30 The Road Home Program was implemented by the State of Louisiana to
provide compensation of up to $150,000 for eligible homeowners affected by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
31 GAO, Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to
Date and Challenges for the Future, [27]GAO-07-574T (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 12, 2007).
Figure 10: City Hall in Pass Christian, Mississippi, Destroyed by
Hurricane Katrina (Below Left), and City Officials in Slidell, Louisiana,
Forced to Operate Out of Trailers since the Hurricane (Below Right)
The mixed condition of the housing stock in the Gulf Coast region could
cause a decrease in productivity rates during address canvassing. During
our fieldwork, we found that hurricane-affected areas have many
neighborhoods with abandoned and vacant properties mixed in with occupied
housing units. Bureau staff conducting address canvassing in these areas
may have decreased productivity because of the additional time necessary
to distinguish between abandoned, vacant, and occupied housing units. We
also observed many areas where lots included a permanent structure with
undetermined occupancy, as well as a trailer. Bureau field staff may be
presented with the challenge of determining whether a residence or a
trailer (see fig. 11), or both, are occupied. Another potential issue is
that because of continuing changes in the condition in the housing stock,
housing units that are deemed vacant or abandoned during address
canvassing may be occupied on Census Day (April 1, 2010).
Figure 11: Trailers in Front of Damaged Housing Units in New Orleans,
Louisiana
Workforce shortages may also pose significant problems for the Bureau's
hiring efforts for address canvassing. The effects of hurricanes Katrina
and Rita caused a major shift in population away from the
hurricane-affected areas. This migration displaced many low-wage workers.
Should this continue, it could affect the availability of such workers for
address canvassing and other decennial census operations.
In 2006, we recommended that the Bureau develop plans (prior to the start
of the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007) to assess whether new procedures,
additional resources, or local partnerships may be required to update the
MAF/TIGER database in the areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.32
The Bureau responded to our recommendations by chartering a team to assess
the impact of the storm damage on the Bureau's address lists and maps for
areas along the Gulf Coast and develop strategies with the potential to
mitigate these impacts. The chartered team recommended that the Bureau
consult with state and regional officials (from the Gulf Coast region) on
how to make the LUCA Program as successful as possible and hold special
LUCA workshops for geographic areas identified by the Bureau as needing
additional assistance.
32 [28]GAO-06-272 and [29]GAO-06-822T .
In addition to the recommendations made by the Bureau's chartered team,
officials from Bureau headquarters and the Dallas Regional Office proposed
steps to address LUCA-related issues in hurricane-affected areas. For
example, they proposed that the Bureau provide LUCA training in several
areas of Louisiana and Mississippi during promotional workshops for the
LUCA Program. Finally, Bureau documentation indicated that the Bureau is
considering an "Update/Enumerate" operation to enumerate addresses in the
most severely devastated parishes and counties in hurricane-affected
areas.33
The Bureau has implemented several of the proposed changes, cited above,
to the 2010 LUCA Program in the Gulf Coast region based on recommendations
from its chartered team, other Bureau headquarters officials, and regional
office officials. For example, the Bureau conducted conference calls with
the states of Louisiana and Mississippi (in October and December 2006,
respectively) to discuss the LUCA Program, and had the Dallas and Atlanta
regional offices hold additional promotional workshops in
hurricane-impacted areas. In addition, Bureau officials have stated that
the regional offices will also encourage participants in these areas to
sign up for LUCA as early as possible so that if they need more than 120
days for conducting their LUCA review, they can request an extension from
the Bureau.
In addition to the changes in the 2010 LUCA Program, the Bureau has
considered changes to the address canvassing and subsequent operations in
the Gulf Coast region. For example, Bureau officials stated that they
recognize issues with identifying uninhabitable structures in
hurricane-affected zones and, as a result, that they may need to change
procedures for address canvassing. The Bureau is still brainstorming
ideas, including the possibility of using an "Update/Enumerate" operation
in areas along the Gulf Coast. Bureau officials also said that they may
adjust training for Bureau staff conducting address canvassing in
hurricane-affected areas to help field staff distinguish between
abandoned, vacant, and occupied housing units. Without proper training,
field staff can make errors and will not operate as efficiently.34 The
Bureau's plans for how it may adjust address canvassing operations in the
Gulf Coast region can also have implications for subsequent operations.
For example, instructing field staff to be as inclusive as possible in
completing address canvassing could cause increased efforts to follow up
on nonrespondents because the Bureau could send questionnaires to housing
units that could be vacant on Census Day. In terms of the Bureau's
workforce in the Gulf Coast region, officials from the Bureau's Dallas
Regional Office recognize the potential difficulty of attracting field
staff, and have recommended that the Bureau be prepared to pay hourly wage
rates for future decennial staff that are considerably higher than usual.
Further, Bureau officials noted that the Bureau's Dallas Regional Office,
which has jurisdiction over hurricane-affected areas in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas, will examine local unemployment rates to adjust
pay rates in the region and use "every single entity" available to
advertise for workers in the New Orleans area. However, Bureau officials
stated that there are "no concrete plans" to implement changes to address
canvassing or subsequent decennial operations in the Gulf Coast region.
For instance, Bureau documentation revealed that the Bureau has not yet
decided whether to implement "Update/Enumerate" operations in areas along
the Gulf Coast.
33 In an "Update/Enumerate" operation, interviewers enumerate a housing
unit and update address registers and census maps at the time of their
visit.
34 GAO, 2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring
Efforts and Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff, [30]GAO-07-361
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 27, 2007).
Conclusions
The Bureau has met the time frames for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the
distribution of advance letters for the 2010 LUCA Program. The Bureau has
also taken a number of steps to improve the LUCA Program, including
providing a longer review period for program participants, providing
localities options for program participation, combining the collection of
addresses from two separate operations into one integrated and sequential
operation, creating MTPS for participant use in the program, and modifying
LUCA training.
However, there is more the Bureau can do to address information
technology-based challenges to the LUCA Program prior to the 2010 Census
and beyond. The Bureau performed little user testing of MTPS and no user
testing of the CBT module for the 2010 LUCA Program; however, the Bureau
can do more to assess the usability of MTPS and the LUCA CBT. For example,
the Bureau could test MTPS and LUCA CBT software with localities before
participants begin reviewing and updating materials for the 2010 LUCA
Program in August 2007. These tests would help the Bureau identify issues
associated with MTPS and LUCA CBT software. Following the tests, the
Bureau can provide information on how localities can mitigate such issues
via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help desk. Without these
tests, localities participating in LUCA 2010 may unnecessarily encounter
issues with the CBT software that may otherwise have been identified
through testing. The Bureau can also provide additional information, via
its public Web site, its LUCA technical help desk, and other means, on
converting Bureau address files from the Bureau's format to specific
software applications used by LUCA Program participants in order to
mitigate difficulties in file conversion previously identified by LUCA
Dress Rehearsal participants. Without such guidance, localities may have
difficulty with the file conversion process, creating additional and
unnecessary burdens for the localities that choose not to use MTPS.
NRC, in its assessment of the LUCA Program, concluded that quantifying the
value of the LUCA program is worthwhile, citing for example its use in
persuading local officials of the value of participating in the LUCA
program. NRC suggests that an evaluation of the LUCA Program consider not
only its contributions to address counts but also to population counts. We
agree that the Bureau can use such information to measure the LUCA
Program's contribution to the decennial census. In addition, the Bureau is
limited in its ability to fully assess the impact of the program because
it does not collect information on why localities that agreed to
participate do not provide updated information. Without these data, the
Bureau cannot determine whether nonresponding localities assessed the
Bureau's information or whether these localities did assess the
information but had no changes. Without these data, the Bureau may be
hampered in its ability to estimate the impact of the LUCA Program on the
MAF database and the census population count.
Bureau efforts to consult with state officials and consider changes in
decennial census operations, including LUCA, in hurricane-affected areas
along the Gulf Coast have helped the Bureau better understand issues
associated with implementing these operations in the Gulf Coast region.
However, the Bureau can do more to successfully implement address
canvassing and other decennial census operations in the Gulf Coast. For
example, Bureau efforts to address issues associated with address
canvassing, such as adjusting wage rates for future decennial staff, may
help the Bureau fulfill staffing requirements for the address canvassing
operation (which is scheduled to take place in 2009) and other decennial
census operations. Because the changing stock may affect the Bureau's
ability to effectively conduct address canvassing and other operations in
the Gulf Coast region, it is important for the Bureau to complete its
planning for addressing the challenges that field staff would likely face.
Recommendations for Executive Action
In order for the Bureau to address the remaining challenges facing its
implementation of the 2010 LUCA Program, we recommend that the Secretary
of Commerce direct the Bureau to take the following five actions:
o Assess potential usability issues with the LUCA Program's CBT
and MTPS by randomly selecting localities in which to test the
software packages or by providing alternative means to assess such
issues before participants begin reviewing and updating materials
for the 2010 LUCA Program in August 2007, and provide information
on how localities can mitigate issues identified in such
assessments via its public Web site and its LUCA technical help
desk.
o Provide localities not using MTPS, via its public Web site, its
LUCA technical help desk, and other appropriate means,
instructions on converting files from the Bureau's format to the
appropriate format for software most commonly used by
participating localities to update address information.
o Assess the contribution of the LUCA Program to the final census
population counts, as recommended by NRC (to permit an evaluation
of the 2010 LUCA Program in preparation for 2020).
o Establish a process for localities that agreed to participate in
the LUCA Program but found no changes in their review to
explicitly communicate to the Bureau that they have no changes.
o Develop strategy, plans and milestones for operations in areas
in the Gulf Coast that address the challenges field staff are
likely to encounter in conducting address canvassing and
subsequent decennial operations in communities affected by the
hurricanes.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Bureau generally agreed
with our recommendations for the Bureau to assess usability issues with
MTPS and CBT; provide localities not using MTPS with instructions on file
conversion; assess the contribution of LUCA to the final census population
counts; establish a process for localities to indicate that they
participated in LUCA but found no changes; and develop strategy, plans,
and milestones for operations in the Gulf Coast that address the
challenges that field staff are likely to face. The Bureau also agreed
with the draft report's recommendation that the Bureau finalize its plans
for conducting the LUCA Program in the areas affected by the hurricanes,
noting that its plans were now final. We therefore deleted this
recommendation. The Bureau also provided some technical comments and
suggestions where additional context might be needed, and we revised the
report to reflect these comments as appropriate. The Bureau's comments are
reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Director of the
U.S. Census Bureau. Copies will be made available to others on request.
This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Mathew J. Scire
Director, Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To assess the current status of the U.S. Census Bureau's (Bureau) Local
Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program, we requested and obtained
source documents from the Bureau's headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, and
the Bureau's Web site regarding the updated timelines of the 2010 LUCA
Program and the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We also visited the Bureau's
regional office in Charlotte, North Carolina; conducted a phone interview
with the Bureau's regional office in Seattle, Washington; and obtained
documents, including the Bureau's timeline for headquarters and regional
office activities associated with the 2010 Census LUCA Program.
Additionally, we analyzed the data to determine if the Bureau's actual
timelines met the planned timelines for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and the
2010 LUCA Program.
Additionally, we interviewed officials from the Bureau headquarters in
Suitland, Maryland, to determine the extent to which activities associated
with the 2010 LUCA Program and LUCA Dress Rehearsal (held June through
October 2006) met their timelines. We also visited and obtained
documentation from localities associated with the LUCA Dress Rehearsal in
California and North Carolina.
To assess how the Bureau is addressing prior issues and new challenges
associated with implementing the LUCA Program, we performed a review of
publications created by GAO and other entities (i.e., the National
Research Council, the Department of Commerce's Office of the Inspector
General, and Anteon Corporation) regarding the LUCA Program to ascertain
critiques of the program and recommendations for improving the program for
the 2010 Census. We also obtained source documents and interviewed
officials from the Bureau's headquarters in Suitland, Maryland, to
determine how the Bureau addressed prior issues and new challenges related
to the LUCA Program and what modifications the Bureau has made to the 2010
LUCA Program. To determine how the 2010 LUCA Program is being implemented,
we undertook fieldwork in 12 localities (in California and North Carolina)
that were eligible to participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, which was
held from June through October 2006. The 12 localities were selected
because they were geographically diverse and varied in population. During
our visits to the localities, we interviewed and obtained documentation
from local government officials to determine how the Bureau implemented
the LUCA Dress Rehearsal and addressed prior issues and new challenges
related to the LUCA Program. We also conducted interviews and collected
documentation from the Bureau's regional offices in Charlotte, North
Carolina, (in person) and Seattle, Washington, (via telephone) to
determine the Bureau's implementation of the LUCA Dress Rehearsal from the
perspective of Bureau officials responsible for the LUCA Dress Rehearsal
sites.
To obtain further information on the experiences of participants with LUCA
Dress Rehearsal activities, we administered a World Wide Web questionnaire
accessible through a secure server to 42 local governments participating
in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We collected data on participants'
experiences with the review process, the census maps and addresses, work
materials, and interactions with the Bureau and other agencies.
Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. However,
the practical difficulties of conducting a survey may introduce errors,
commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in
interpreting a particular question, or sources of information available to
respondents, can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results.
We took steps in developing the questionnaire, collecting the data, and
analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling errors.
For example, the survey was tested with two LUCA Dress Rehearsal
participants in order to check that the questions were clear and
unambiguous, the information could be obtained by the respondents, and the
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the respondents. When we
analyzed the data, an independent analyst checked all computer programs.
Once the questionnaire was finalized, each of the 42 local governments was
notified that the questionnaire was available online and provided with a
unique password and user name. Therefore, respondents entered their
answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, eliminating the need
to key data into a database.
We included in our study population those local governments in California
and North Carolina that participated in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. We
defined participants as those local governments that had signed up to
participate and had not later indicated that they in fact did not
participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. The Bureau identified 44 state,
county, and municipal governments that met our criteria as participating
in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. Questionnaires were sent to 42 local
governments1 and were completed by 31 such governments, for a response
rate of 74 percent. There were a total of 62 localities eligible to
participate in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal. In addition to our survey, we
also performed structured interviews (in person and via telephone) with
officials in 7 localities that were eligible to participate in the LUCA
Dress Rehearsal but did not take part in the program.
1 The questionnaire was sent to 42 local governments, not 44, because one
local official was responsible for 3 localities, and we sent the
questionnaire to that official only once.
To assess how the Bureau is addressing the challenges in areas affected by
hurricanes Katrina and Rita that may affect the Bureau's successful
implementation of the 2010 LUCA Program, we undertook fieldwork in eight
localities situated in portions of the Gulf Coast region (Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas) affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We
selected these localities because they varied in size and location in the
Gulf Coast region. During the fieldwork, we obtained documentation and
interviewed officials from each locality about what challenges, if any,
the hurricane damage poses to the locality's successful participation in
the 2010 LUCA Program.
We obtained source documents and interviewed officials from Bureau
headquarters in Suitland, Maryland (in person), and the Bureau regional
office in Dallas, Texas (via telephone), about how the Bureau is
addressing the aforementioned challenges that are faced by eligible
participants in the 2010 LUCA Program in the areas affected by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. We also obtained information, from the sources mentioned
above, on the extent to which the Bureau has addressed prior GAO
recommendations regarding performing decennial census operations in
hurricane-affected areas.
We conducted our work from July 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce
Appendix III: Web-Based Survey of LUCA Dress Rehearsal Participants
Experiences with LUCA review
1. Between the time that the Census Bureau sent its invitation to take
part in the LUCA dress rehearsal and your decision to participate, did
the Bureau contact you to explain the importance of LUCA and encourage
your participation?
(Check only one answer.)
(Number of participants that selected that answer)
1. Yes (23)
2. No (Click here to skip to Question 3.) ( 0)
3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 3.) ( 8)
2. In what ways, if any did the Census Bureau contact you?
(Check all that apply.)
1. Telephone (11)
2. E-mail ( 9)
3. Mail (22)
4. In-person ( 7)
5. Other ( 0)
6. Not sure ( 0)
3. Did the Census Bureau notify you about LUCA classroom training
opportunities in you area?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (27)
2. No (Click here to skip to Question 5.) ( 1)
3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 5.) ( 3)
4. Did your participate in any LUCA classroom training provided by the
Census Bureau?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (24)
2. No ( 3)
3. Not sure ( 0)
5. Did the Census Bureau contact you at any time after you agreed to
participate in the LUCA dress rehearsal?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (28)
2. No (Click here to skip to Question 7.) ( 0)
3. Not sure (Click here to skip to Question 7.) ( 3)
6. In what ways, if any did the Census Bureau contact you after you
agreed to participate in the LUCA dress rehearsal?
(Check all that apply.)
1. Telephone (11)
2. E-mail (11)
3. Mail (23)
4. In-person ( 4)
5. Other ( 0)
6. Not sure ( 1)
7. Have you completed and submitted the LUCA dress rehearsal materials
to the Census Bureau?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (30)
2. No ( 1)
3. Not sure ( 0)
8. Which LUCA dress rehearsal participation option did you choose?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Option 1 - Title 13 Full Address List Review in paper ( 8)
format
2. Option 1 - Title 13 Full Address List Review in computer (14)
readable format
3. Option 2 - Title 13 Local Address List Submission ( 5)
4. Option 3 - Non-Title 13 Local Address List Submission ( 4)
9. What are the reasons that you chose that participation
option?
10. How satisfied were you with the participation options that were
offered by the Census Bureau?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Very satisfied ( 6)
2. Generally satisfied (16)
3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ( 9)
4. Generally dissatisfied ( 0)
5. Very dissatisfied ( 0)
11. What other options, if any, would you have preferred
to have offered to you and why?
12. How clear was guidance on the schedule for initiating
and completing the LUCA dress rehearsal review?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Very clear (11)
2. Clear (15)
3. Neither clear nor unclear ( 3)
4. Unclear ( 2)
5. Very unclear ( 0)
6. No basis to judge ( 0)
Experiences with maps during your LUCA review
13. Did you do a full review or a partial review of the
maps?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Full review (reviewed 100% of the maps) (Click here to (21)
skip to Question 15.)
2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to ( 7)
skip to Question 14.)
3. Neither (we are not reviewing the maps) (Click here to ( 3)
skip to Question 17.)
14. If you did a partial review of the maps, what did you review and
how did you decide which maps to review?
15. Did you request either shape files of the maps or paper maps from
the Census Bureau?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Shape files (11)
2. Paper (17)
3. None ( 1)
16. Was the workload for reviewing the maps more or less
than you expected?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Much more than we expected ( 4)
2. Somewhat more than we expected (11)
3. Neither more nor less than we expected (13)
4. Somewhat less than we expected ( 0)
5. Much less than we expected ( 0)
17. Which of the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Surveys, if
any, did your jurisdiction participate in over the last 3 years?
(Check all that apply.)
1. Participated in 2003 Boundary and Annexation Survey (11)
2. Participated in 2004 Boundary and Annexation Survey (14)
3. Participated in 2005 Boundary and Annexation Survey (16)
4. Did not participate in any Boundary and Annexation Surveys (12)
between 2003 and 2005 (Click here to skip to Question 19.)
18. Were map changes that your jurisdiction submitted between 2003 and
2005 as part of a Boundary and Annexation Survey incorporated into the
LUCA dress rehearsal maps?
(Check only one answer.)
1. All or almost all submitted changes were reflected in the ( 9)
LUCA dress rehearsal maps
2. Some submitted changes were reflected in the LUCA dress ( 6)
rehearsal maps
3. Few or none of the submitted changes were reflected in the ( 0)
dress rehearsal maps
4. Don't know ( 4)
5. Other (please specify in question below) ( 1)
To what extent were your jurisdiction's Boundary and Annexation map
changes incorporated into the LUCA dress rehearsal maps?
(If you reach the end of the text box and need to type more,
please continue; the box will scroll forward as needed.)
Experiences with address lists during your LUCA review
19. Did your jurisdiction do a full or partial review of the address
list and/or address count?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Full review (reviewed 100% of the addresses on the list (21)
and/or count) (Click here to skip to Question 21.)
2. Partial review (targeted or sample checked) (Click here to ( 7)
skip to Question 20.)
3. Neither (we are not reviewing the Bureau's address list ( 3)
and/or count) (Click here to skip to Question 25.)
20. If you conducted a partial review of the address list and/or
address count, what factors contributed to your decision to conduct a
partial review?
21. In verifying the Census Bureau's address list, did you
use a single or multiple sources of address data?
(Check only one answer.)
1. A single source of address data for all or almost all ( 9)
addresses in paper format (Click here to skip to Question
23.)
2. A single source of address data for all or almost all ( 6)
addresses
3. Multiple sources of address data in electronic format (13)
(Click here to skip to Question 23.)
22. What format did you use most for the multiple sources
of address data?
(Check only one answer.)
1. All or almost all sources in electronic format ( 4)
2. Majority of sources are in electronic format ( 7)
3. An approximately equal mix of electronic and paper formats ( 2)
4. Majority of sources are in paper format ( 4)
5. All or almost all sources are in paper format ( 2)
23. What sources did you use to obtain the address data for your LUCA
review?
24. Was the workload for reviewing the address list and/or count more
or less than what you expected?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Much more than we expected (10)
2. More than we expected (6)
3. Neither more nor less than we expected (12)
4. Less than we expected ( 0)
5. Much less than we expected ( 0)
Work Materials and Relationships
25. How easy or difficult did you find the following to
work with?
(Check one for each row.)
No
basis
Very
Very Neither easy to
easy Easy nor difficult Difficult difficult judge
25a Address list ( 0) ( 7) (12) ( 9) ( 2) ( 0)
25b. Address count ( 1) (10) (13) ( 4) ( 1) ( 1)
25c. Maps ( 1) ( 5) (16) ( 6) ( 0) ( 1)
25d. Instructions on
completing LUCA dress
rehearsal submission ( 0) ( 7) (14) ( 7) ( 2) ( 0)
26. To what extent, if any, did you experience problems with the
following?
(Check one for each row.)
No
Very basis
great Great Moderate Small No to
extent extent extent extent extent judge
26a. Scheduling of LUCA
training ( 0) ( 0) ( 4) ( 5) 16) ( 5)
26b. Accuracy and completeness
of the addresses on the list ( 1) ( 3) ( 7) (11) ( 5) ( 3)
26c. Accuracy and completeness
of the address count ( 1) ( 1) ( 7) (11) ( 5) ( 5)
26d. Accuracy and completeness
of the maps ( 1) ( 2) (10) ( 6) ( 7) ( 2)
26e. Media on which the Census
Bureau provided information ( 3) ( 1) ( 5) ( 9) (10) ( 1)
26f. Meeting Census Bureau
requirements concerning the
format and media for returning
information ( 4) ( 5) ( 8) ( 5) ( 8) ( 0)
26g. File conversion to
appropriate formats ( 3) ( 6) ( 5) ( 3) ( 7) ( 6)
26h. Other (specify in question
below) ( 0) ( 3) ( 1) ( 0) (4) ( 6)
What other problems, if any, did you experience?
(If you reach the end of the text box and need to type more, please
continue; the box will scroll forward as needed.)
27. How sufficient, if at all, are the following resources in your
jurisdiction to conduct the LUCA dress rehearsal review?
(Check one for each row.)
No
basis
Very Moderately Somewhat Not at all to
sufficient Sufficient sufficient sufficient sufficient judge
27a. Human
resources
available ( 2) (12) ( 3) ( 6) ( 7) ( 1)
27b.
Technical
resources
available ( 2) (16) ( 2) ( 5) ( 4) ( 2)
28. To what extent, if any, did your staff doing the LUCA dress
rehearsal review have the skills necessary for this type of work?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Very great extent ( 3)
2. Great extent (12)
3. Moderate extent ( 9)
4. Small extent ( 4)
5. Not at all ( 0)
6. No basis to judge ( 3)
29. How satisfied, if at all, were you with the following
Census Bureau actions?
(Check one for each row.)
Neither No
satisfied basis
Very nor Very to
satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied dissatisfied judge
29a. Extent
of training
regarding
address
list and/or
count
review ( 0) ( 9) (14) ( 4) ( 1) ( 3)
29b. Extent
of training
regarding
map review ( 0) (10) (14) ( 1) ( 1) ( 5)
29c. Extent
of training
regarding
the
procedures
used for
submissions
to the
Bureau ( 0) ( 8) (15) ( 4) ( 1) ( 2)
29d. Extent
of Census
Bureau
assistance ( 3) (15) (10) ( 0) ( 2) ( 1)
29e.
Timeliness
of the
Census
Bureau's
response to
your
questions ( 6) (14) ( 7) ( 1) ( 0) ( 3)
29f.
Adequacy of
responses
provided by
the Census
Bureau to
any
questions
you asked ( 7) (11) ( 8) ( 2) ( 0) ( 3)
30. Considering your experience completing the LUCA dress rehearsal,
how helpful to you would the following types of training activities
have been before you began your LUCA review?
(Check one for each row.)
No
Not at basis
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly all to
helpful helpful helpful helpful helpful judge
30a. Classroom
training at a regional
site ( 3) ( 9) (12) ( 2) ( 1) ( 2)
30b. Interactive
computer-based
training provided on
CD-ROM or DVD ( 5) (11) ( 3) ( 5) ( 2) ( 4)
30c. Interactive
internet training ( 2) (11) ( 7) ( 3) ( 2) ( 5)
30d. Self instruction
using Census Bureau
training guides ( 1) ( 9) ( 9) ( 8) ( 2) ( 2)
31. How helpful to you would the following types of training activities
have been during your LUCA review?
(Check one for each row.)
No
Not at basis
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly all to
helpful helpful helpful helpful helpful judge
31a. Classroom
training at a regional
site ( 4) (11) ( 5) ( 5) ( 2) ( 2)
31b. Interactive
computer-based
training provided on
CD-ROM or DVD ( 5) (12) ( 3) ( 3) ( 2) ( 3)
31c. Interactive
internet training ( 5) (13) ( 4) ( 2) ( 2) ( 3)
31d. Self instruction
using Census Bureau
training guides ( 2) ( 7) ( 8) ( 9) ( 3) ( 1)
32. How helpful would guidance specific to your office's software have
been in completing your LUCA review?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Extremely helpful (11)
2. Very helpful ( 8)
3. Moderately helpful ( 1)
4. Slightly helpful ( 3)
5. Not at all helpful ( 1)
6. No basis to judge ( 7)
33. Did your state data center assist you in completing the LUCA
dress rehearsal review?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes ( 3)
2. No (24)
3. Don't Know ( 3)
34. How useful have the following sources of assistance been in
doing your review and update of the address list and/or count and
maps?
(Check one for each row.)
No
Not at basis
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly all to
useful useful useful useful useful judge
34a. LUCA dress
rehearsal training
session ( 0) ( 9) (11) ( 4) ( 0) (7)
34b. LUCA dress
rehearsal reference
manuals ( 0) ( 12) (11) ( 7) ( 0) ( 1)
34c. State data center ( 0) ( 0) ( 1) ( 4) ( 2) (22)
34d. Other government
entities, such as
regional partnerships or
county governments ( 2) ( 6) ( 3) ( 2) ( 0) (17)
34e. Census Bureau's
regional office ( 2) ( 4) (12) ( 6) ( 1) (6)
34f. E-mail contact with
the Census Bureau ( 0) ( 5) ( 6) ( 6) ( 1) (12)
34g. Census Bureau's web
site ( 0) ( 2) ( 5) ( 3) ( 4) ( 17)
34h. Other (please
specify what type of
assistance and who
provided it in question
below) ( 0) ( 3) ( 0) ( 0) ( 0) (15)
What type of other assistance did you receive and who
provided the assistance?
35. If a source of assistance in question 34 was of "little or no use",
please elaborate on each type of assistance providing examples or
illustrations where possible.
36. Which of the following best describes how much of the Census
Bureau's LUCA materials your locality's review covered?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Covered more than originally planned or expected ( 6)
2. Covered about what was originally planned or expected (20)
3. Covered less than originally planned or expected ( 5)
37. Was adequate time allowed to complete the review?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (22)
2. No ( 5)
3. Don't know ( 4)
38. Given your experiences completing the LUCA dress rehearsal, do you
anticipate doing any of the following for the 2010 LUCA?
(Check one for each row.)
Yes No Don't know
38a. Start our LUCA review earlier (19) ( 8) ( 4)
38b. Make completing LUCA a higher priority for staff (14) ( 9) ( 8)
38c. Better prepare local materials prior to (16) ( 8) ( 7)
receiving LUCA documentation
38d. Solicit technical assistance from Census (15) ( 9) ( 6)
regional staff earlier in the process
38e. Other (please specify in question below) ( 1) ( 5) (12)
What other activities would you do differently in future
LUCA reviews?
39. Given your experiences with the LUCA dress rehearsal, what actions,
if any, could the Bureau take to improve the program?
40. If you have any additional comments regarding any previous
questions or other comments concerning LUCA, the Census Bureau, or this
survey, please use the space provided below.
Background Information
41. Did your jurisdiction participate in any of the 2000 Decennial
Census LUCA programs?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (10)
2. No ( 9)
3. Not sure (11)
42. Have you had previous experience with any LUCA
reviews?
(Check only one answer.)
1. Yes (12)
2. No (17)
3. Not sure ( 1)
43. How long have you served in your current position?
Contact Information
44. What is the name of the person we should contact if we have any
questions?
Name
What is the telephone number of the person we should contact if we have
any questions?
Phone number
What is the e-mail address of the person we should contact if we have any
questions?
E-mail
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Mathew J. Scire, (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]
Acknowledgments
In addition to the individual named above, Ernie Hazera, Assistant
Director; Timothy Wexler; Tom Beall; Michael Carley; Cynthia Cortese;
Peter DelToro; Tom James; Andrea Levine; Amanda Miller; Matt Reilly; Mark
Ryan; and Michael Volpe made key contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products
Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to Date and
Challenges for the Future. [32]GAO-07-574T . Washington, D.C.: April 12,
2007.
2010 Census: Census Bureau Should Refine Recruiting and Hiring Efforts and
Enhance Training of Temporary Field Staff. [33]GAO-07-361 . Washington,
D.C.: April 27, 2007
2010 Census: Redesigned Approach Holds Promise, but Census Bureau Needs to
Annually Develop and Provide a Comprehensive Project Plan to Monitor
Costs. [34]GAO-06-1009T . Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2006.
2010 Census: Census Bureau Needs to Take Prompt Actions to Resolve
Long-standing and Emerging Address and Mapping Challenges. [35]GAO-06-272
. Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2006.
2010 Census: Costs and Risks Must be Closely Monitored and Evaluated with
Mitigation Plans in Place. [36]GAO-06-822T . Washington, D.C.: June 6,
2006.
2010 Census: Census Bureau Generally Follows Selected Leading Acquisition
Planning Practices, but Continued Management Attentions Is Needed to Help
Ensure Success. [37]GAO-06-277 . Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.
2010 Census: Planning and Testing Activities Are Making Progress.
[38]GAO-06-465T . Washington D.C.: March 1, 2006.
2010 Census: Basic Design Has Potential, but Remaining Challenges Need
Prompt Resolution. [39]GAO-05-9 . Washington, D.C.: January 12, 2005.
2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part of the Decennial Census
Would Not Be Cost-Effective. [40]GAO-04-898 . Washington, D.C.: August 19,
2004.
2010 Census: Overseas Enumeration Test Raises Need for Clear Policy
Direction. [41]GAO-04-470 . Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2004.
2010 Census: Cost and Design Issues Need to Be Addressed Soon.
[42]GAO-04-37 . Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2004.
Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting Migrant and
Seasonal Farm Workers. [43]GAO-03-605 . Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2003.
Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup
Data Need Refinement. [44]GAO-03-228 . Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003.
Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and Reporting Data on the
Homeless and Others without Conventional Housing Need Refinement.
[45]GAO-03-227 . Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2003.
2000 Census: Lessons Learned for Planning a More Cost-Effective 2010
Census. [46]GAO-03-40 . Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2002.
(450511)
2000 Census: Local Address Review Program Has Had Mixed Results to Date.
[47]GAO/T-GGD-99-184. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1999.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-736 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-6806 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [55]GAO-07-736 , a report to congressional addressees
June 2007
2010 CENSUS
Census Bureau Has Improved the Local Update of Census Addresses Program,
but Challenges Remain
The Department of Commerce's (Commerce) U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) seeks
updated information on the addresses and maps of housing units and group
quarters from state, local, and tribal governments through the Local
Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) Program. Prepared under the Comptroller
General's authority, this report assesses (1) the status of the LUCA
Program, (2) the Bureau's response to prior recommendations by GAO and
others and new challenges related to the program, and (3) the Bureau's
plans for conducting the program in areas affected by hurricanes Katrina
and Rita.
GAO reviewed LUCA program documents, met with and surveyed participants in
the LUCA Dress Rehearsal, and interviewed Bureau officials and local
officials in the Gulf Coast region.
[56]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Bureau to take
several actions to improve the LUCA Program, including further testing the
MAF/TIGER Partnership Software (MTPS) and the computer-based training
(CBT) software to assess ease of use and establishing a schedule for plans
for conducting address canvassing and related operations in
hurricane-affected areas. In commenting on a draft of this report,
Commerce generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and offered technical
comments.
The Bureau has conducted its planned LUCA operations in accordance with
its published timeline. The Bureau has also taken steps to reduce
workloads and burdens and improve training for localities that participate
in LUCA--all areas GAO and others had identified as needing improvement.
For instance, to reduce participant workload and burden, the Bureau
provided a longer period for reviewing and updating LUCA materials;
provided options for submitting materials for the LUCA Program; combined
the collection of LUCA addresses from two separate operations into one
integrated program; and created MTPS, which is designed to assist LUCA
Program participants in reviewing and updating address and map data. Also,
the Bureau has planned improvements to the 2010 LUCA Program training
(i.e., specialized workshops for informational and then technical
training) and plans to supplement the workshops with CBT.
Improvements made to LUCA program (such as MTPS), but challenges remain
(such as uncertainty about the ability of localities in the Gulf Coast
region to participate in LUCA).
However, the Bureau faces new challenges. For instance, the Bureau tested
MTPS with only one local government. Other local officials we spoke with
had problems converting Bureau-provided address files. In addition, the
Bureau did not test its CBT software in the LUCA Dress Rehearsal.
Additional challenges stem from the damage to the Gulf Coast region caused
by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Officials in localities in
hurricane-affected areas questioned their ability to participate in the
LUCA Program. The continuous changes in housing stock may hinder local
governments' ability to accurately update their address lists and maps.
The condition of the housing stock is likely to present additional
challenges for the Bureau's address canvassing operation (in which the
Bureau verifies addresses) in the form of decreased productivity for
Bureau staff, workforce shortages, and issues associated with identifying
vacant and uninhabitable structures. The Bureau created a task force to
assess the implications of storm-related issues that proposed a number of
mitigating actions. However, the Bureau has no plans for modifying the
address canvassing operation or subsequent operations in the Gulf Coast
region.
References
Visible links
20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-465T
22. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927EUR
27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-574T
28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-361EUR
32. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07574t.pdf
33. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07361.pdf
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1009T
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-272
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-822T
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-277
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-465T
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-9
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-898
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-470
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-37
43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-605
44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-228
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-227
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-40
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-184
55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-736
*** End of document. ***